Martin v. Marks was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Martin, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Martin sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Martin v. Marks established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Martin v. Marks, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether it has been approved by a third party or not. Furthermore, he noted that if one party breaches their contractual obligations then they are liable for damages to the other party as long as those damages were foreseeable at the time of entering into said contract. In this case, Justice Field believed that there had been an agreement between Martin and Marks which included certain terms such as payment for services rendered; thus when Marks failed to fulfill his end of the bargain he became liable for any losses suffered by Martin due to his breach of contract. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since there was evidence presented in court showing an existing agreement between these two parties with specific conditions attached thereto then it would have been appropriate to award damages against Marks based upon his failure to comply with said agreement - therefore reversing the majority's decision and remanding back down for further proceedings accordingly.